Missouri v. Frye

Issue: Can a defendant who validly pleads guilty assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging that, but for counsel’s error in failing to communicate a plea offer, he would have pleaded guilty with more favorable terms? What remedy, if any, should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures?

Certiorari-Stage Documents

• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of Connecticut and eleven other states
• Petitioner’s reply

Lafler v. Cooper

Issue: Whether a state habeas petitioner is entitled to relief when his counsel deficiently advises him to reject a favorable plea bargain but the defendant is later convicted and sentenced pursuant to a fair trial.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Petition of the day

Briefs and Documents

Certiorari-Stage Documents

• Opinion below (6th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply

Post Padilla: Padilla’s Puzzles for Review in State and Federal Courts Vanderbilt Law Research Paper Series Vanderbilt University Law School Nancy J. King Vanderbilt Law School Gray Proctor affiliation not provided to SSRN Federal Sentencing Reporter, Volume 23, Issue 3 (Feb 2011) Abstract: This article addresses questions that may face courts as defendants seek relief under the Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, which held that counsel’s failure to adequately inform the defendant of the deportation consequences of conviction constituted deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment. Issues addressed include: express waivers of review in plea agreements; what constitutes deficient advice and prejudice sufficient for a finding of ineffective assistance; the retroactive application of Padilla to cases on post-conviction review; federal habeas review of state court decisions rejecting Padilla-type claims; procedural default, successive petition, and time bars to federal habeas review of Padilla claims; and other collateral relief. This draft includes citations to emerging case authority available as of October 28, 2010.

Title: Jones v. Williams Docket: 09-948 Issue: Whether the Tenth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations to a defendant who was later convicted and sentenced in a fair trial, on the ground that the remedy the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals gave to the defendant was constitutionally inadequate, given that the Supreme Court has not clearly established what remedy, if any, is appropriate for ineffective assistance of counsel in such a case. Opinion below (10th Circuit, rehearing denied) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner’s reply The relevant “facts.”

Pity Oklahoma doesn’t have the CCA’s awesome powers of de novo review.

I don’t think the defense counsel’s belief in the client’s innocence is the deciding factor, is it? The question is based on the likely evidence admissible at trial can the prosecution prove the case and get a conviction. Regardless of your own belief in the client’s innocence the weight of the likely evidence and the client’s desires come first?